1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The biblical teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 does not ground the practice of head coverings in cultural norms or traditions. Instead, it bases the practice in the created order and the relationship between men and women. Furthermore, the passage does not distinguish between different types of veils or occasions for veiling, such as a distinct veil for church or worship services. Rather, it presents head coverings as a principle for women, rooted in the biblical account of creation.

****************

The biblical teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 does not ground the practice of head coverings in cultural norms or traditions.

True. Amanah will contend that the Biblical headcovering is a commanded veil. Veils are an invention of Man, and as such became a custom of some people. This then results in seeing God changing what had been a custom into a command. Yet not at the time of creation, when it is expected that which is part of created order would first appear, but 4050 yrs later. This does not make sense to most people. The holders of the veil view have some explaining to do. Why does God wait 4050 years to command that which all people of all time are expected to do, by Natural Law, which has been present since creation. This veil view thus, should be adjusted or discarded. And perhaps Amanah will now change her mind on the veil view, which any thinking person would do in light of the holes of the veil view.

Instead, it bases the practice in the created order and the relationship between men and women.

Amanah would have you believe that this relationship includes the veil which Nature has assisted the woman to don. If Nature leads all women in the same direction, then we might see the majority of women in all places and all times holding to a veil. Is this in fact what is seen by history? If long hair is led by Nature to be the cover, then we would see the majority of women in all places and all times with long hair. Is this in fact what is seen by history? What is your opinion as to what percentage would indicate a majority. Does 51% offer sufficient support or is it 90%? (Caution: we are now venturing to a place where history, and not the Word, will help determine a view which is said to be the Biblical view for all to hold.)

Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'. Or, why is what is seen as coming to be by Nature said to be a command just for the NT when it wasn't for 4050 years of OT history. God was quite capable to command in the OT times, that which he shows by Nature. And he hadn't until 1Co11 is misinterpreted as a command. An explanation must be proffered to explain this about the OT. Ask yourself this. If 1Co11 were not present, would we be having a convo about whether the veil vs long hair is the woman's commanded cover? Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don has no friends.

Don wants no friends.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don has no friends.

Don wants no friends.

Don is hell bent on convincing us the Bible is a house of cards. He comes here to proselytize because he has nowhere else to go? He should ask Aquila how that turns out. The Ultra Cons remain undefeated!

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don is hell bent on convincing us the Bible is a house of cards. He comes here to proselytize because he has nowhere else to go? He should ask Aquila how that turns out. The Ultra Cons remain undefeated!

****************

Don is hell bent on convincing us the Bible is a house of cards.

Rather, Don is heaven bent on exposing holes in misinterpretations of 1Co11 and in providing a scriptural view which aligns with the facts.

He comes here to proselytize because he has nowhere else to go? He should ask Aquila how that turns out. The Ultra Cons remain undefeated!

Ultra cons is an unscriptural term which aligns with other unscriptral views of 1Co11, such as the veil view.

How about we refrain from mud slinging and attend to the task at hand instead? We've all got better things to attend to. Agreed?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don is hell bent on convincing us the Bible is a house of cards. He comes here to proselytize because he has nowhere else to go? He should ask Aquila how that turns out. The Ultra Cons remain undefeated!

Also notice how Don belittles his opposition. But, cries wee, wee, wee, all the way home when it’s done to him?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

True. Amanah will contend that the Biblical headcovering is a commanded veil. Veils are an invention of Man, and as such became a custom of some people. This then results in seeing God changing what had been a custom into a command. Yet not at the time of creation, when it is expected that which is part of created order would first appear, but 4050 yrs later. This does not make sense to most people.

This doesn't make sense to Don. Most people recognise that 1 Cor 11 teaches women ought to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying. Unfortunately, most American and Western European people believe the command was "for then, but times have changed and is no longer something we need to do".

God commanded Levites to blow trumpets, silver trumpets, which were an invention of man. So God changes a custom (people blew trumpets for all sorts of reasons in ye olden dayes) into a command, and even establishes a particular annual Feast Day for blowing trumpets. God also commanded Levites to praise God using stringed instruments and cymbals, something once again invented by men. So once again God is seen "changing a custom into a command". And once again Don is seen across the street beyond left field waving his banner that nobody left in the game is paying attention to.

The holders of the veil view have some explaining to do.

Don has some explaining to do, like how is it that Paul explicitly says a woman is to be covered when praying or prophesying, yet Don thinks not so? Or how Don continues to believe that the only thing that can be a command is whatever was commanded to Adam and Eve? Why does Don disregard the words of both the Lord (through Moses) and Jesus Christ Himself, who jointly affirmed that man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? Including 1 Cor 11? Etc etc.

Amanah would have you believe that this relationship includes the veil which Nature has assisted the woman to don. If Nature leads all women in the same direction, then we might see the majority of women in all places and all times holding to a veil. Is this in fact what is seen by history?

This statement by Don proves that Don is either totally ignorant of the subject, in which case he is absolutely no authority on the subject, or else he is intentionally attempting to mislead people, in which case again he is absolutely no authority on the subject. I haven't found a single person in all of history anywhere at any time who pretends that historically the majority of women did not wear some kind of head covering, across practically all cultures and time periods. As stated previously several times, those customs varied from place to place and time to time, but generally the idea that a woman would have a head covering was not seen as anything "newfangled and innovative". Further, Don once again begs the question, "if nature leads all women in the same direction"? Says who? Why, Don says, that's who. Paul asserted to the Corinthians that nature teaches them something, which lesson from nature is supportive of his instruction regarding headcovering (as applied to both men and women). We already discussed what "nature" means Biblically, and especially in Paul's writings, which discussion Don is conveniently pretending did not take place, as evidenced by his use of "nature" as if it were somehow culturally independent.

If long hair is led by Nature to be the cover, then we would see the majority of women in all places and all times with long hair. Is this in fact what is seen by history?

In Don's world of minecraft, women didn't used to have long hair. I'm sorry, but the only people seriously asking this type of question would be toddlers raised on 1980s sitcoms only.

(Caution: we are now venturing to a place where history, and not the Word, will help determine a view which is said to be the Biblical view for all to hold.)

Then why even raise the question? And why the "caution"? Don would have us determine doctrine based on his absurd vague soundbites about "instincts", which I am sure are not nearly as authoritative as recorded known history, and certainly not as informative.

Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'.

Look at the duplicity here. This is called "straw-manning". Nobody, including the apostle Paul, said "nature shows us the veil is a command of God." That idea only exists in Don's mind. And that is because Don either cannot understand what is being said to him, or because he has an agenda. Lest anyone think Don hasn't been informed on this point, once again, Paul says nature teaches a lesson, namely, that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman. THAT is the lesson from nature. Not that "women should wear a veil". The lesson from nature CORROBORATES and SUPPORTS and ILLUSTRATES what Paul is teaching. Paul teaches a man should be uncovered and a woman should be covered when praying or prophesying. Nature teaches long hair is a shame to a man and a glory to woman. The two lessons follow a similar trajectory regarding the "covering" and "uncovering" of the two genders, and thus are correlative. This has been explained multiple times, yet Don persists in this "well, does nature teach us that women ought to wear a headcovering?" There is only one explanation for this behaviour that satisfies Occam's Razor.

Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't.

Reason would say that Don is either a dishonest heretic or else is incompetent to carry on a conversation about the Bible. A supporter of natural law? God's commandments are now said to be a "supporter of Natural Law"? Which clearly places "Natural Law" as the PRIMARY thing, and God's commandments as a supplemtary and explanatory and illustrative support for this supposed "Natural Law". Good grief.

And once again we see the "there can be no new testament command because it wasn't already commanded in the old testament", which doctrine is nowhere found in either the old testament or the new testament. I suppose the source for this bizarre unbiblical doctrine is Don's personal "natural instincts". Which reminds me of something the Bible says, that Amanah previously posted, about people only knowing what they know by "natural instincts" or something, like the brute beasts.

I am sure this thread will continue with multiple replies from Don where he will rehash the same old same old tired nonsense about instincts, Adam and Eve, the old testament doesn't command something therefore the new testament can't command it, Natural Law, did women really have long hair before the 20th century? did women really wear head coverings before some people on AFF started posting about it? yada yada yada blah blah blah yackety shmackety.

And, occasionally, when I am bored, I will pop in and remind Don and everybody else that he is wrong on the interwebs once again.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This doesn't make sense to Don. Most people recognise that 1 Cor 11 teaches women ought to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying. Unfortunately, most American and Western European people believe the command was "for then, but times have changed and is no longer something we need to do".

God commanded Levites to blow trumpets, silver trumpets, which were an invention of man. So God changes a custom (people blew trumpets for all sorts of reasons in ye olden dayes) into a command, and even establishes a particular annual Feast Day for blowing trumpets. God also commanded Levites to praise God using stringed instruments and cymbals, something once again invented by men. So once again God is seen "changing a custom into a command". And once again Don is seen across the street beyond left field waving his banner that nobody left in the game is paying attention to.



Don has some explaining to do, like how is it that Paul explicitly says a woman is to be covered when praying or prophesying, yet Don thinks not so? Or how Don continues to believe that the only thing that can be a command is whatever was commanded to Adam and Eve? Why does Don disregard the words of both the Lord (through Moses) and Jesus Christ Himself, who jointly affirmed that man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? Including 1 Cor 11? Etc etc.



This statement by Don proves that Don is either totally ignorant of the subject, in which case he is absolutely no authority on the subject, or else he is intentionally attempting to mislead people, in which case again he is absolutely no authority on the subject. I haven't found a single person in all of history anywhere at any time who pretends that historically the majority of women did not wear some kind of head covering, across practically all cultures and time periods. As stated previously several times, those customs varied from place to place and time to time, but generally the idea that a woman would have a head covering was not seen as anything "newfangled and innovative". Further, Don once again begs the question, "if nature leads all women in the same direction"? Says who? Why, Don says, that's who. Paul asserted to the Corinthians that nature teaches them something, which lesson from nature is supportive of his instruction regarding headcovering (as applied to both men and women). We already discussed what "nature" means Biblically, and especially in Paul's writings, which discussion Don is conveniently pretending did not take place, as evidenced by his use of "nature" as if it were somehow culturally independent.



In Don's world of minecraft, women didn't used to have long hair. I'm sorry, but the only people seriously asking this type of question would be toddlers raised on 1980s sitcoms only.




Then why even raise the question? And why the "caution"? Don would have us determine doctrine based on his absurd vague soundbites about "instincts", which I am sure are not nearly as authoritative as recorded known history, and certainly not as informative.



Look at the duplicity here. This is called "straw-manning". Nobody, including the apostle Paul, said "nature shows us the veil is a command of God." That idea only exists in Don's mind. And that is because Don either cannot understand what is being said to him, or because he has an agenda. Lest anyone think Don hasn't been informed on this point, once again, Paul says nature teaches a lesson, namely, that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman. THAT is the lesson from nature. Not that "women should wear a veil". The lesson from nature CORROBORATES and SUPPORTS and ILLUSTRATES what Paul is teaching. Paul teaches a man should be uncovered and a woman should be covered when praying or prophesying. Nature teaches long hair is a shame to a man and a glory to woman. The two lessons follow a similar trajectory regarding the "covering" and "uncovering" of the two genders, and thus are correlative. This has been explained multiple times, yet Don persists in this "well, does nature teach us that women ought to wear a headcovering?" There is only one explanation for this behaviour that satisfies Occam's Razor.



Reason would say that Don is either a dishonest heretic or else is incompetent to carry on a conversation about the Bible. A supporter of natural law? God's commandments are now said to be a "supporter of Natural Law"? Which clearly places "Natural Law" as the PRIMARY thing, and God's commandments as a supplemtary and explanatory and illustrative support for this supposed "Natural Law". Good grief.

And once again we see the "there can be no new testament command because it wasn't already commanded in the old testament", which doctrine is nowhere found in either the old testament or the new testament. I suppose the source for this bizarre unbiblical doctrine is Don's personal "natural instincts". Which reminds me of something the Bible says, that Amanah previously posted, about people only knowing what they know by "natural instincts" or something, like the brute beasts.

I am sure this thread will continue with multiple replies from Don where he will rehash the same old same old tired nonsense about instincts, Adam and Eve, the old testament doesn't command something therefore the new testament can't command it, Natural Law, did women really have long hair before the 20th century? did women really wear head coverings before some people on AFF started posting about it? yada yada yada blah blah blah yackety shmackety.

And, occasionally, when I am bored, I will pop in and remind Don and everybody else that he is wrong on the interwebs once again.

Don is wrong.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

This poster won't be replied to by donfriesen1, because many of his responses are only attempts at character assassinations - poor hermeneutics. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock the one he thinks is lost.

[donfriesen1]

Part 2/2

Originally Posted by Esaias

This doesn't make sense to Don......

........wrong on the interwebs once again.

****************



Quote: from donfriesen1
Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'.
Esaias replies.

Look at the duplicity here. This is called "straw-manning". Nobody, including the apostle Paul, said "nature shows us the veil is a command of God."

No duplicity here from Don .The reason this was said, was the veil view's argument that nature testifies in support of the idea that God commands the veil. The veil view is not my view. The arguments put forward are not mine. I've only referred to that which others have put forward and support. Their use of it results in nature showing the veil as a command of God. Finito.

That idea only exists in Don's mind. And that is because Don either cannot understand what is being said to him, or because he has an agenda. Lest anyone think Don hasn't been informed on this point, once again, Paul says nature teaches a lesson, namely, that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman. THAT is the lesson from nature. Not that "women should wear a veil".

Again, from the view point of the veil view, this makes perfect sense. What should also be done is to figure out, when this makes sense, is it Pauls view of what God thinks? Why should this be determined? Because the evidence doesn't support the premise. Because facts can sometimes lead us to wrong conclusions. (Trinitarians wrongly see the three simultaneous manifestations of God at Jesus' baptism as indicative of 3 Persons - a wrong conclusion of the facts. The only Word at the time of Jesus' baptism was the OT. It had testified that this conclusion is against the Oneness of God, which is out of agreement with the Trinitarian conclusion, showing it shouldn't be held, though the facts of Jesus' baptism actually showed 3 individual simultaneous manifestations of God.)

Paul's values come from the OT, the Book he loves and is a scholar/expert of. His reading of the OT shows God commanding those men who wish a deeper consecration by a life long Nazarite vow, commanding those with life long vows to have long hair. Which would Paul say is the correct view to hold when based on the Word he holds in his hand? He would say, had he then been queried, 'that the Book I get my values from doesn't command men not to have long hair, and gives examples of holy men who were commanded by God to have long hair by the Nazarite commands'. Thus, he would not say that manly long hair is a sin when looking through the eyes of the OT.

Putting first things first, the OT, as the foundation of the NT, would not lead to the conclusion that long hair is sinful. Another explanation of v14 must be found which agrees with the OT foundation. The view provided by the instinct view provides such an explanation, though admittedly it is somewhat a stretch. Though a stretch, it is in agreement with the facts of the OT and can be seen to be in agreement with 1Co11. Though this is contrary to what is now believed about long hair/v14 by some apostolics, it should be considered as the plausible explanation which explains all the facts of the OT and 1Co11, doing so without holes.

Jesus was baptized by a long-haired Nazarite. The thought of any apostolic parent to have their children baptized by some long-haired male preacher is abhorrently a pejorative. But the example that Jesus gives, should lead to an examination of what produces this abhorrency; and then the rejection of it. The facts don't change. Jesus was baptized by a long-hair. Its time to receive the view which is in agreement with the facts. A microscopic view of v14 sees long hair as a sin, but a macroscopic view of the whole Word does not, though still a dishonour, but for other reasons. The instinct view may be the one to show the facts in a correct light, while the uncut long and veil views do not. They show views contrary to the facts. 'Application forms' are available for all those now wanting to switch views.

The lesson from nature CORROBORATES and SUPPORTS and ILLUSTRATES what Paul is teaching. Paul teaches a man should be uncovered and a woman should be covered when praying or prophesying.

Sure. A view like this can be made and it appears to be good thinking, until examined in the light of the OT, the Book Paul loves. Then it falls apart. Its difficult to change views after swearing up and down for years that a particular view should be held by all. But it can be done. I did after 40 years and so can others. Facing the truth and accepting what the facts say helps greatly to do so.

There is only one explanation for this behaviour that satisfies Occam's Razor.

What chapter is that found in? Not in the Bible? Oh, ok then. Thx but no thx. Joking aside, the instinct view, when new to the mind, is seen as the more complex because it has caused conflict with a long held view, causing confusion and the thought it is more complex. If you ever believed in Trintarian baptism you think those Jesus name people complicate things by their Jesus name baptism. But once accepted it becomes laughable to think that Jesus name baptism isn't accepted. It's so simple. The instinct view is actually the less complex. Man was created with God-given instincts. Perhaps you'll find a way to prove this wrong. This was true before Man was given any commands. Man at his simplest is right at the moment of creation. Commands make Man's life more complex. The instincts view sees Man satisfying God's order as such, in the simplicity of how they were created, without commands. The addition of commands by the veil/uncut long views adds additional elements to this simple scenario. They add complexity to the simplicity of the creation scenario.

This is now the third time you have provided proofs showing the veil view as correct and logical. Thx, for referencing Occam's Razor .

Quote: fromdonfriesen1
Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't. Esaias replies

Reason would say that Don is either a dishonest heretic or else is incompetent to carry on a conversation about the Bible.

Don loves the Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God. He is not a heretic. Someone's views of 1Co11 do not scripturally define whether person is a heretic or not. Esaias is again looking for a way to make a graceful exit because he has nothing of substance to say against the instincts view to prove it as unscriptural. Instead he throws rotten tomatoes.

Plz note that Esaias again avoids answering the question posed. Does he purposely use a distraction to divert the reader from considering the truths it holds?

A supporter of natural law? God's commandments are now said to be a "supporter of Natural Law"? Which clearly places "Natural Law" as the PRIMARY thing, and God's commandments as a supplemtary and explanatory and illustrative support for this supposed "Natural Law". Good grief.

Looks like that sentence of mine could have been worded differently. Here it is within the paragraph for context: "Whatever answer comes of such a search must then answer the question, 'does Nature show us that the veil is a command of God?'. Or, why is what is seen as coming to be by Nature said to be a command just for the NT when it wasn't for 4050 years of OT history. God was quite capable to command in the OT times, that which he shows by Nature. And he hadn't until 1Co11 is misinterpreted as a command. An explanation must be proffered to explain this about the OT. Ask yourself this. If 1Co11 were not present, would we be having a convo about whether the veil vs long hair is the woman's commanded cover? Why does the OT itself not present enough evidence to see either the veil or long hair as a command as the cover, when it should as a supporter of Natural Law? What would reason then say, about which is more likely to be the cover provided by Nature - long hair or a veil custom of Man. What this lack of OT evidence is saying is that Paul would not conclude this from reading it, that Nature is commanding the veil. In light of the Book he loves and is willing to die for, Paul would not command the veil because the OT hasn't."

When saying that, that the OT is a supporter of Natural Law (Natural Law is Esaias' thing and I agree with it, see post 210) I gave the impression that it is the Primary which is supported by the Secondary, the OT. What I was trying to say is that the OT is a witness to the verity of Natural law, that it is in agreement with Esaias's premise of Nature's law. I believe the OT is the primary, supported by the secondary - Nature's law.

Esaias pokes holes in some of my mispoken statements and some of my grammtical wordings, but doesn't say much to disprove the claims of the instincts view. He also doesn't counter my refutations of the veil view very well. It is hard to refute truth or to defend misinterpreted doctrine with truth. Light and darkness don't co-habit.

And once again we see the "there can be no new testament command because it wasn't already commanded in the old testament", which doctrine is nowhere found in either the old testament or the new testament. I suppose the source for this bizarre unbiblical doctrine is Don's personal "natural instincts". Which reminds me of something the Bible says, that Amanah previously posted, about people only knowing what they know by "natural instincts" or something, like the brute beasts.

It remains true as an undisputed fact: The OT has not commanded the keeping of co/unco, nor yet commanding its keeping by symbols.

I am sure this thread will continue with multiple replies from Don where he will rehash the same old same old tired nonsense about instincts, Adam and Eve, the old testament doesn't command something therefore the new testament can't command it, Natural Law, did women really have long hair before the 20th century? did women really wear head coverings before some people on AFF started posting about it? yada yada yada blah blah blah yackety shmackety.

Reader, ask yourself why Esaias doesn't present undisputed counter-arguments to these, when a man of his caliber and experience should have no difficulty doing so, unless it is truth.

And, occasionally, when I am bored, I will pop in and remind Don and everybody else that he is wrong on the interwebs once again.

As always, thx for any popping you may do on this thread. How about staying and playing devil's advocate for the uncut long view? I'm sure you know enough of their view to present a defence for the holes seen there. How about it?